I stopped talking about my decidedly bearish long-term concerns as they suddenly became consensus on Wall Street and in the media. The negative sentiment got ahead of itself so I had to (at least attempt to) moderate the discussion.

In other words, there's always long-term uncertainty, even when you're Apple and, in the absence of Steve Jobs, especially when you're Apple. But if any company deserves the benefit of the doubt and the type of multiple the market gives names like Netflix (NFLX) , Amazon.com (AMZN) and LinkedIn (LNKD) , Apple does.

My long-term concerns never went away. I put them on the back burner in favor of a more rational discussion of where Apple is today and where it's headed vis-a-vis its largely unproven competition. In other words, if we're going to ask companies and CEOs to prove themselves, within the context of the probability of future success, we should start with everybody but Apple and Tim Cook. With or without Steve Jobs, Apple has earned as close to a free pass as we should ever give.

Call it flip-flopping. Call it being a contrarian. Label it riding both sides of the fence. Doesn't phase me one bit. Apple is a complex case study that crosses disciplines; I treat it as such. If you're not bullish and bearish, cheerleader and critic -- simultaneously -- on Apple, you're watering down the situation.

Things are good, but they could turn bad. This company's great, but it could wind up just good -- or worse. But that's life so there's no good reason to jump to the conclusion of a $250 crash in the stock and a price-to-earnings ratio of 10.